At 2:33 PM +0800 10/31/98, Paul Zellmer wrote:
The phrase OUK EC ERGWN in most cases is used to speak of the
insufficiency of works to save or make righteous (see Rom 9:11, Gal
2:16, Eph 2:9, Tit 3:5). Yet James 2:21 and 2:25 use that same
phrase to argue that faith and works go hand in hand.
I am NOT looking for a theological argument here. I can see clearly
that James agrees with salvation through faith and that works are
the result of such faith. However, I am having problems working
through the grammar that results in James' arguments in these two
verses.
What, other than the editorial markings, are the indicators that OUK
EC ERGWN in James 2:21 is a question in a logical argument that
result in a translation like, "Was he not justified by works?" (I
would assume similar indicators are found in 2:25.) When I look at
the clause, it looks almost like a *statement* like, "It was not by
works that he was justified," or "He was not justified by works."
Obviously, I'm missing something basic here!
What I would note about the context of these two verses in Jas 2, Paul,
is the rhetorical sequence that begins in 2:14. I haven't really read
much about the history and range of the diatribe, but I know there's a
literature on this, and some like James Ware may be able to supply some
specifics--I'm not sure whether this falls into that category or not.
I do recognize, however, a pattern that I have seen over and over again
in both Greek and Latin rhetorical argumentation, and I think there are
probably rhetorical analyses in print that will better explain what
just appears to me to be on the surface here:
2:14 puts a basic question, addresses it to ADELFOI MOU in the
vocative, so that this is an orator addressing an audience, albeit an
ecclesiastical one, and sets forth a general question with a rhetorical
question pretty clearly expecting a negative answer: MH DUNATAI hH
PISTIS SWSAI AUTON? (otherwise you wouldn't have MH with an
indicative). 2:15 presents a hypothetical instance of the naked brother
or sister without sustenance, then 2:16 has the generalizing present
condition ending with the apodosis, TI TO OFELOS, in the reverse order
of the parallel conditional construction and rhetorical question in
2:14. 2:17 is the QED of the sequence begun in 2:14 in a celebrated
proverbial dictum that was clearly (I'd say) composed with a notion
that it was likely to BECOME a celebrated proverbial dictum.
Then 2:18 raises what is a very typical rhetorical ploy of the orator:
the hypothetical objection by a hypothetical interlocutor introduced by
the indefinite pronoun with a future indicative: here it is ALL' EREI
TIS ... In Latin one reads repeatedly in Cicero and elsewhere: AT DICET
ALIQUIS ... or SED QUAERET QUISPIAM ... The response comes in 2:19 with
a sarcastic flourish, again with a rhetorical question and a
knock-em-over-the-head response (KAI TA DAIMONIA PISTEUOUSIN ... KAI
FRISSOUSIN) UBS4 doesn't show a pause between PISTEUOUSIN and KAI
FRISSOUSIN, but you'd expect that kind of careful timing from a
stand-up comedian presenting these lines, wouldn't you? (I do believe
I'm exemplifying the style in this very argument). It continues with a
sarcastic barb at the hypothetical objector in 2:20 via the vocative
phrase, W ANQQRWPE KENE, and a reformulation in different words of the
proverbial dictum of 2:17: compare ... hH PISTIS, EAN MH ECHi ERGA,
NEKROS ESTIN KAQ' hEAUTHN and hH PISTIS CWRIS TWN ERGWN ARGH.
Then 2:21 raises the example of Abraham, and later 2:25 in parallel
phrasing raises the example of Rahab. You say, Paul, that you can't
tell that 2;21 and 2:25 ought to be read as rhetorical questions, but
imagine them instead as sarcastic statements of what the hypothetical
objector wants to claim and then what follows will still show that the
intent of 2:21 and 2:25 was to poke fun at the ideas that they set
forth. What's lacking from classical Attic is the A)=RA at the
beginning of the sentence that makes it absolutely clear that these are
rhetorical questions: "Isn't it the case that our father Abraham was
justified by works ...?" OR put it thus: "You claim (that) our father
Abraham was not justified by works ..." The proposition is being
exposed to ridicule. And that's what I see as the essential quality of
this whole rhetorical argument about faith and works here: it is
essentially a REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM of the proposition that an
inconsequential faith has any salvific value. I think that the language
and phrasing of the passage cry out aloud that it is a piece of
rhetoric more than a piece of logical exposition. It helps, of course,
to have seen this repeatedly as a standard rhetorical ploy in ancient
literature, but I rather suspect that one might come to the same
conclusions about this sequence just by careful analysis of the
psychological impact of the sequence of clauses upon a listening
audience--and it helps, also, to bear in mind that most ancient
literature was written not for the silent reader but for the ears of an
audience.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu